Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (69596)	8/24/1999 2:09:00 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574491

Pravin, re:<I really don't think you can make problem traces skinnier. They are already at minimum width, or if they are not, are at a width needed for whatever they are driving. If the traces are on different layers, you can translate one of them so they are not on top of each other. If they are on the same layer, you can increase the spacing between them. If they are on they same layer and you have copper, you can decrease their thickness (not width).> So, do you think the CuMine delay is consistent with the turnaround time for a re-layout? I thought Paul indicated that at least part of the correction was process-related rather than mask related. BTW, you were right on the capacitance issue except for inbetween layers. Isn't crosstalk not just a capacitance issue, but also inductive pickup? Seems like shorter traces radiate less energy and capture less energy, but closer distances increases the energy transfer, and lower voltage circuits have less margin. So, net-net, does inductive and capacitive crosstalk get worse for smaller geometry? Sorry to ask so many questions, but you seem to know more about this issue than I do. Petz